Spooks and Casino Royal are both very patriotic, they are very similar in some of the more subtle ways they represent Britishness, but for the main display they are totally different. Casino Royal is more of an action thriller while Spooks is more of a drama. The main difference between the two is not so much the way they represent Britishness, but the way they go about entertaining and glorifying the British Intelligence Services.
Spooks is very political, it is made by the BBC, however it would have to be said that it is much more liberal and left wing. For example in the episode I watched, the Bendorf group consisting of eight members, own 75% of the worlds resources put together, they have more political influence than anybody in the world. Although this is just a drama, this could actually be a political message and representation of a real group in the USA called the Bilderburg group. The Bilderburg group have one hundred and twenty five members of some of the richest people in the world, together they own about 75% of the worlds resources. Within this group there are CEO's of massive corporations, incredibly powerful politicians such as Hillary Clinton, corporate banking CEO's, lots of business men in the general world of natural resources such as oil and gas and CEO's of private corporate military contract organisations such as Blackwater. There have been massively bold claims against this group for being the new world order, but also lots of proof that they have done lots of mining in places like Africa which fund and fuel wars and mass genocides there. Almost exactly like the terrorist group in Spooks said. In the episode though, it portrays the terrorists and the Bendorf group as being bad, the audience sympathise a lot with the terrorist group, but may not agree with the way in which they're doing it. So the only real good guys in episode are the MI5 agents, who are nearly all white British. The Bendorf group was American, Russian and Chinese and the terrorists were French.
In Casino Royal and also Spooks, all the main characters have a lot in common. They are nearly all "White British Men" who are upper middle class and will almost certainly have come out of Oxbridge. The security services used to actually only recruit students out of Oxford and Cambridge, now they are more open but it's still the stereotype of an MI5 agent. It's as there is an elite culture of middle class men and women who are defending Britain intelligently, morally and technologically in secret. Both Spooks and Casino Royal fit massively into those stereotypes, but the way they go and represent the jobs of the security services is totally different. Casino Royal glorifies violence, action and also the view of women being sexual objects. The incredibly beautiful and intelligent accountant who at first is meant to be repulsed by James eventually falls for James, it's as if going around being a spy is killing people, being reckless and chasing women. But non of this is meant to be taken literally, it is all adding to the thrill of James Bond. One of the main ways for instance is the promotion of James Bond being turned into a double o (007) or the way his incredibly expensive cars have machine guns and rockets on them. Spooks however, although it also glorifies being an intelligence agent, it does it in a very different way. To a degree Spooks is meant to be taken more literally, it has real political issues within it, it also has a bigger sense of realism. The actual truth of working for the security services, is that it will most of the time be quite boring and sometimes exciting, but to make good drama they have to glorify it. Most episodes do take they're time to get to there final goal, but it's always very intense which is what makes it good, Casino Royal turns everything into action or sexualises it.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Monday, 23 November 2009
Notes on Spooks - Series 8 Episode 3 ... Cultural Identity and what Spooks represents
Upper class
Modern and technological
Patriotic
Sophisticated
Cool
Glorified
Subtle
Secret
Political
Conspiracies (Bendorf Group, owning 75% of worlds resources)
BBC created, supposedly unbiased, however it’s views are more left wing.
Justified
The “Good Guys”
Authoritive
Power struggles
Modern and technological
Patriotic
Sophisticated
Cool
Glorified
Subtle
Secret
Political
Conspiracies (Bendorf Group, owning 75% of worlds resources)
BBC created, supposedly unbiased, however it’s views are more left wing.
Justified
The “Good Guys”
Authoritive
Power struggles
How has the internet changed our notion of ‘Collective Identity’ ?
The new media today is still a MASS audience, it is even a bigger audience than before as new technological advances keep accelerating and economies have been boosting rapidly in some parts of the world which were not up to date technologically. Such as China, India, Iran, Croatia, Cuba etc … Not only this, but Web.2.0 can be accessed nearly anywhere in the world, to get internet connectivity to your laptop now days, it is as simple as using a memory stick provided by a company such as 3. However, in terms of Britishness, the audience has also become bigger, it is actually a government objective to create ‘Digital Britain’, this is an economic, environmental and user friendly aim. This probably won’t be fully successful for some time though, as there are still too many of the older generations which are ‘Digital Immigrants’. Not all people have Computers in their home yet. The mass British audience is actually changing it’s notion of selective identity because we no longer a mass audience in terms of similarities, only in numbers. The audience is now more selective in choosing how they interpret the messages.
The internet has allowed and opened doors to an unbelievable amount of communication methods. Blogs, social networking, wiki, twitter, file sharing, online gaming, 3G, email, virtual words, video conferencing etc … Everyday people in Britain are meeting people from different cultures and identities over the internet, creating relationships with them and socialising with, often via instant messengers, online gaming or chat rooms. There are even full communities on the internet for instance, clans or guilds in online gaming, they have official websites, Teamspeak (microphone) servers, game servers and even meet up and it’s all done because of the internet. This utter freedom to connect with others in the world, is it creating all the technological advanced countries into one mass audience and are we loosing our collective identity as British people?
The internet is without a doubt changing our collective identity, the influence and connection with and to other cultures certainly is one big factor; the biggest influencer is the world super power, America. If you look just on the most basic level, Britain gets lots of their media such as their films, music, games and news before anyone else in the world, we also get there companies and corporations. Britain has even become more Americanised in the way we have now inherited ‘Litigation Culture’, every time you turn on the TV now, there are adverts asking you to sue people on a ‘No Win, No Fee Basis’. So combining the freedom of the British people to connect with other cultures, the corporations and businesses coming over from America and others countries, the idea of the American dream in so many young persons minds completely un-aware of how influenced they are by the media, and the part that the British media has to play in it such as papers like the daily mail that are full of propaganda, Britain’s Collective Identity has and is certainly changing.
Postmodernism is always a heavy influence in the change of ‘Collective Identity’. Over the last twenty years, what has become acceptable in the media and what hasn’t has rapidly changed. We now have the watershed for instance on TV, after this, almost anything can be shown on TV. But the internet has no restrictions to what can be put on it and what can be viewed at any time of the day, it is also now the biggest form of media consumption ever. The internet is by far and to such a large degree the most flexible to its content and mass audience form of Media in the world. All the new generations of people who are ‘Digital Natives’ are exposed to everything on the internet. Internet Pornography for example is readily available on the internet at any time of the day, totally free, totally legally and advertised massively. Not to mention all the adverts that are on normal websites, full of models or half naked men and women totally sexualised. The generations of ‘Digital Natives’ are totally exposed to this all the time and are influenced all there lives by it, they are even influenced when walking down the street looking at random people who are sexualised, advertisers, cars, shops and even music. I am not saying all this is totally a bad thing, I am saying that it would never have been appropriate to wear such revealing clothes for instance on an everyday basis and the internet has a massive part to play in the influence of Britain’s ideology and value streams.
“Web 2.0 isn’t a thing, it’s a state of mind” ‘Sabbah 1985” This quote by Sabbah is very true, he is saying that Britain and actually much of the world is totally reliant on the internet, it has become our infrastructure of security, economy, communication and arguably society. If the internet was to go down for even one day, it would be economically catastrophic; it would be the rise of a whole new moral panic. Teenagers or ‘Digital Natives’ are almost totally reliant on the internet as well, for communication, fun, education etc … Most teenagers spend over two hours on the internet every day, often for non-educational purposes. Over 90% of households in Britain have a games console in there household, a majority of them now connected to the internet, not to mention those that do PC gaming as well. In the last twenty years or so, books have been almost totally replaced by TV, internet and gaming. Our Notion of British ‘Collective Identity’ is now totally different and arguably non existent accept on the most basic level such as language and sport. But our values, culture and ideologies are all a big mix of America and Europe.
The internet has allowed and opened doors to an unbelievable amount of communication methods. Blogs, social networking, wiki, twitter, file sharing, online gaming, 3G, email, virtual words, video conferencing etc … Everyday people in Britain are meeting people from different cultures and identities over the internet, creating relationships with them and socialising with, often via instant messengers, online gaming or chat rooms. There are even full communities on the internet for instance, clans or guilds in online gaming, they have official websites, Teamspeak (microphone) servers, game servers and even meet up and it’s all done because of the internet. This utter freedom to connect with others in the world, is it creating all the technological advanced countries into one mass audience and are we loosing our collective identity as British people?
The internet is without a doubt changing our collective identity, the influence and connection with and to other cultures certainly is one big factor; the biggest influencer is the world super power, America. If you look just on the most basic level, Britain gets lots of their media such as their films, music, games and news before anyone else in the world, we also get there companies and corporations. Britain has even become more Americanised in the way we have now inherited ‘Litigation Culture’, every time you turn on the TV now, there are adverts asking you to sue people on a ‘No Win, No Fee Basis’. So combining the freedom of the British people to connect with other cultures, the corporations and businesses coming over from America and others countries, the idea of the American dream in so many young persons minds completely un-aware of how influenced they are by the media, and the part that the British media has to play in it such as papers like the daily mail that are full of propaganda, Britain’s Collective Identity has and is certainly changing.
Postmodernism is always a heavy influence in the change of ‘Collective Identity’. Over the last twenty years, what has become acceptable in the media and what hasn’t has rapidly changed. We now have the watershed for instance on TV, after this, almost anything can be shown on TV. But the internet has no restrictions to what can be put on it and what can be viewed at any time of the day, it is also now the biggest form of media consumption ever. The internet is by far and to such a large degree the most flexible to its content and mass audience form of Media in the world. All the new generations of people who are ‘Digital Natives’ are exposed to everything on the internet. Internet Pornography for example is readily available on the internet at any time of the day, totally free, totally legally and advertised massively. Not to mention all the adverts that are on normal websites, full of models or half naked men and women totally sexualised. The generations of ‘Digital Natives’ are totally exposed to this all the time and are influenced all there lives by it, they are even influenced when walking down the street looking at random people who are sexualised, advertisers, cars, shops and even music. I am not saying all this is totally a bad thing, I am saying that it would never have been appropriate to wear such revealing clothes for instance on an everyday basis and the internet has a massive part to play in the influence of Britain’s ideology and value streams.
“Web 2.0 isn’t a thing, it’s a state of mind” ‘Sabbah 1985” This quote by Sabbah is very true, he is saying that Britain and actually much of the world is totally reliant on the internet, it has become our infrastructure of security, economy, communication and arguably society. If the internet was to go down for even one day, it would be economically catastrophic; it would be the rise of a whole new moral panic. Teenagers or ‘Digital Natives’ are almost totally reliant on the internet as well, for communication, fun, education etc … Most teenagers spend over two hours on the internet every day, often for non-educational purposes. Over 90% of households in Britain have a games console in there household, a majority of them now connected to the internet, not to mention those that do PC gaming as well. In the last twenty years or so, books have been almost totally replaced by TV, internet and gaming. Our Notion of British ‘Collective Identity’ is now totally different and arguably non existent accept on the most basic level such as language and sport. But our values, culture and ideologies are all a big mix of America and Europe.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Moral Panics Essay
Compare and Contrast three Case Studies. How do Moral Panics help Form or Fragment Cultural Identity ?
Moral Panic is defined as an 'Abstract concept used to make sense of Irrational Public Hysteria'. The three key words I want to focus on are irrational, public and hysteric. Moral Panics effect the whole public, which is a mass audience. When a mass audience wants to hear more about certain topics, the media will put massive amounts of effort, money and time into making sure they do hear about it, to sell more news and to charge higher rates to advertisers. They form and fragment cultural identity for the simple reason, 'Moral Panics change what is socially acceptable and what is socially feared'. For example, Paedophilia in the twenty first century is now incredibly feared and publicised. It never used to be such a big deal until one or a few very serious cases got publicised by the media turning it into a Moral Panic. It was/is irrational with news corporations giving names and pictures of sex offenders, it is feared by a mass public audience, of which the majority are hysteric about.
Within the Processual Model, stage five, six and seven describe what happens at the end of the Moral Panic. Stage five (coping and resolution) talks about leading to 'Legal Reform', this is a key part of how a Moral Panic helps form Cultural Identity. The last three stages could almost be called the 'conclusion' stage, as the panic is evaluated, action is taken to try and reduce the panic and make sure it doesn't happen again and then the legacy of it comes in. Ultimately though, it is often the government or law that governs what is acceptable. For instance, the UK has a large under age binge drinking culture, the average age to start drinking is now only twelve years old. The legal age to start drinking in the UK is eighteen, however in the USA, it is now in all states aged twenty-one and people often do not start drinking there until they are at least that age or close to it. This is partly historical but arguably down to the law, which sets what is socially acceptable and not. Not only this, but the punishments in the USA are much harsher than in the UK, acting as a much bigger deterrent . This is in many ways similar to the raves and ecstasy Moral Panic that started around 1988. At the time, there was a huge culture for very fast and upbeat music and also going out to clubs at the weekends etc ... Ecstasy and drugs for lots was a usual thing, but at the time there had been no scientific research into the effects of Ecstasy. It is very difficult to make things illegal unless there is any evidence to prove it is actually dangerous. The media at first condemned rave culture turning many youths in the eye of the British public into 'Folk Devils', not only this but they used headlines such as 'Fascade for dealing in drugs' which caused large panics. The papers really got there win when a girl called Bett's died on her eighteenth birthday because of water intoxication when she had taken ecstasy. This led to 'Legal Reform' and ecstasy becoming illegal. The legacy of this moral panic lead to massive social reform, ecstasy and raves are now seen as very socially un-accepted and a big minority of society actually do either anymore.
The Moral Panics involving Child Abuse and Paedophilia both lead to massive social reform and are both cases of Moral Panics that are still 'worried' areas of society. Unlike the HIV/AIDS Moral Panic where people have calmed down and accepted people with HIV/AIDS quite happily into society, also not being incredibly ignorant and blaming homosexuals and drug addicts for every problem, seeing homosexual as 'folk devils', the Paedophilia and Child abuse still get a moderate amount of attention. Although legal reform has been put in place, although there are incredible measures to stop the abuse of children and also intense pressure on child care services because of the 'baby P' tragedy, they still get a lot of media coverage. These are both cases of moral panics where the legacy lives on, I think this is also because parents are naturally incredibly protective over they're children and can get very easily sucked in to bad things that 'could' happen to there children. Parents will naturally ignore that the chances of this happening to they're children are actually very low as long as they're generally sensible about bringing up children, rather than being hugely over protective and condemning people left right and centre.
However, these Moral Panics are horribly blown up by the media, partly because of 'Media Entrepreneurs' (stage three in the Processual Model) which of course will start irrational panics among the public. This leads to intense pressure on politicians and governments which they really must take hard lines against these 'folk devils' as if they do not, they will be seen as useless in the eyes of the public and loose valuable votes.
Moral Panic is defined as an 'Abstract concept used to make sense of Irrational Public Hysteria'. The three key words I want to focus on are irrational, public and hysteric. Moral Panics effect the whole public, which is a mass audience. When a mass audience wants to hear more about certain topics, the media will put massive amounts of effort, money and time into making sure they do hear about it, to sell more news and to charge higher rates to advertisers. They form and fragment cultural identity for the simple reason, 'Moral Panics change what is socially acceptable and what is socially feared'. For example, Paedophilia in the twenty first century is now incredibly feared and publicised. It never used to be such a big deal until one or a few very serious cases got publicised by the media turning it into a Moral Panic. It was/is irrational with news corporations giving names and pictures of sex offenders, it is feared by a mass public audience, of which the majority are hysteric about.
Within the Processual Model, stage five, six and seven describe what happens at the end of the Moral Panic. Stage five (coping and resolution) talks about leading to 'Legal Reform', this is a key part of how a Moral Panic helps form Cultural Identity. The last three stages could almost be called the 'conclusion' stage, as the panic is evaluated, action is taken to try and reduce the panic and make sure it doesn't happen again and then the legacy of it comes in. Ultimately though, it is often the government or law that governs what is acceptable. For instance, the UK has a large under age binge drinking culture, the average age to start drinking is now only twelve years old. The legal age to start drinking in the UK is eighteen, however in the USA, it is now in all states aged twenty-one and people often do not start drinking there until they are at least that age or close to it. This is partly historical but arguably down to the law, which sets what is socially acceptable and not. Not only this, but the punishments in the USA are much harsher than in the UK, acting as a much bigger deterrent . This is in many ways similar to the raves and ecstasy Moral Panic that started around 1988. At the time, there was a huge culture for very fast and upbeat music and also going out to clubs at the weekends etc ... Ecstasy and drugs for lots was a usual thing, but at the time there had been no scientific research into the effects of Ecstasy. It is very difficult to make things illegal unless there is any evidence to prove it is actually dangerous. The media at first condemned rave culture turning many youths in the eye of the British public into 'Folk Devils', not only this but they used headlines such as 'Fascade for dealing in drugs' which caused large panics. The papers really got there win when a girl called Bett's died on her eighteenth birthday because of water intoxication when she had taken ecstasy. This led to 'Legal Reform' and ecstasy becoming illegal. The legacy of this moral panic lead to massive social reform, ecstasy and raves are now seen as very socially un-accepted and a big minority of society actually do either anymore.
The Moral Panics involving Child Abuse and Paedophilia both lead to massive social reform and are both cases of Moral Panics that are still 'worried' areas of society. Unlike the HIV/AIDS Moral Panic where people have calmed down and accepted people with HIV/AIDS quite happily into society, also not being incredibly ignorant and blaming homosexuals and drug addicts for every problem, seeing homosexual as 'folk devils', the Paedophilia and Child abuse still get a moderate amount of attention. Although legal reform has been put in place, although there are incredible measures to stop the abuse of children and also intense pressure on child care services because of the 'baby P' tragedy, they still get a lot of media coverage. These are both cases of moral panics where the legacy lives on, I think this is also because parents are naturally incredibly protective over they're children and can get very easily sucked in to bad things that 'could' happen to there children. Parents will naturally ignore that the chances of this happening to they're children are actually very low as long as they're generally sensible about bringing up children, rather than being hugely over protective and condemning people left right and centre.
However, these Moral Panics are horribly blown up by the media, partly because of 'Media Entrepreneurs' (stage three in the Processual Model) which of course will start irrational panics among the public. This leads to intense pressure on politicians and governments which they really must take hard lines against these 'folk devils' as if they do not, they will be seen as useless in the eyes of the public and loose valuable votes.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Moral Panic's
Moral Panic - (Abstract concept used to make sense of 'Irrational Public Hysteria' - e.g. Paedophilia)
- Public and academic debate on moral panic works on the assumption that the media plays a significant role in determining the charactersistics of a moral panic.
-Signifies complex processes that shape public perceptions of a perceived threat to the moral case of society.
Processual Model:
A hends to process of moral panic, it has 7 defined stages...
-Emergence
-Media Inventry : Explanation of threat is manipulated by the media
-Media Entrepeneus: Groups of organisations speak out offering solutions
-Experts: Socially acredited experts who diagnose solutions
-Coping and resolution: retain to media and moral entrepeneus leads to legal reform.
-Fading away - Condition disappears, submerges, detiorates or becomes more visible
-Legacy - a moral panic have a long term effect and created big changes in social policy, the law, or society's views on it's self.
Attribution Model:
Claims those working in the media, politcal institutions of the legal system impact on the moral panics through 'claims making'
-5 Elements or Critera distinguish attributes of moral panics.
-Concern - a heightened level of convern, measurable through oponion polls etc ...
-Hostility - Increased hostility to a group or category - seen as 'enemy', to the rest of 'responsible' society.
-Consensus - a substantial segmant of society, agrees that the threat is real or caused by 'wrong dooers'.
-Disproportionality - The reaction by the public is out of proportion of the actual harm.
-Volatile - the idea that moral panics are volatile by nature, erupt quickly, but also often subside quickly. Each episode cannot be sustained for long.
- Public and academic debate on moral panic works on the assumption that the media plays a significant role in determining the charactersistics of a moral panic.
-Signifies complex processes that shape public perceptions of a perceived threat to the moral case of society.
Processual Model:
A hends to process of moral panic, it has 7 defined stages...
-Emergence
-Media Inventry : Explanation of threat is manipulated by the media
-Media Entrepeneus: Groups of organisations speak out offering solutions
-Experts: Socially acredited experts who diagnose solutions
-Coping and resolution: retain to media and moral entrepeneus leads to legal reform.
-Fading away - Condition disappears, submerges, detiorates or becomes more visible
-Legacy - a moral panic have a long term effect and created big changes in social policy, the law, or society's views on it's self.
Attribution Model:
Claims those working in the media, politcal institutions of the legal system impact on the moral panics through 'claims making'
-5 Elements or Critera distinguish attributes of moral panics.
-Concern - a heightened level of convern, measurable through oponion polls etc ...
-Hostility - Increased hostility to a group or category - seen as 'enemy', to the rest of 'responsible' society.
-Consensus - a substantial segmant of society, agrees that the threat is real or caused by 'wrong dooers'.
-Disproportionality - The reaction by the public is out of proportion of the actual harm.
-Volatile - the idea that moral panics are volatile by nature, erupt quickly, but also often subside quickly. Each episode cannot be sustained for long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)